[Diamond Dog]

So anyways, whist you guys flail away at each other in Quarantine :

The inspiration for the album theme and cover art were the "gladrag girls" who worked in The Ziegfield Follies and similar shows in the early part of the 20th century, this from interviews Krall gave when the record was being pitched at release time. Chorus girls... not hookers ( although count on there being some exceptions ). Chorus girls.  The concept that attracted Krall was the juxtaposition of the supposed glamour of the job these girls did vs. the sad and often sordid reality of their lives which was anything but. That`s showbiz...

D.D.

[Rclark]

Didn't read the OP but I loved the pics. 

[CSI]

I first heard Diana Krall on my local jazz radio station. I thought, hmmm a very nice voice, a good feel for the jazz vocal idiom and a pretty decent piano player. And she was doing old Nat Cole covers on a tribute album which I loved. Then I bought the album and discovered she was also beautiful. As I collected more of her albums I heard her improve as a musician (her time got much better, thanks in part to some coaching from Ray Brown). She listens to her group and is apparently not much of a diva which means good musicians like to work with her. Although she has always used her good looks to help promote her work (like any other musician, male or female, who has the looks and a nickels worth of marketing sense) she has never seemed to take herself too seriously (unlike some less talented musicians). Is she my favorite jazz piano player? No. My favorite jazz singer? Not really. But I like her a lot and play her albums frequently. If the sexy cover art helps get a few non-jazz fans to take a listen, where's the harm in that? I would think only a prude or a music snob would object.

[mcgsxr]

I do own a lot of her music, in fact most of it but the current one which I will no doubt end up with at some point.

Though overused at audio functions, I find some of her music good for reference and critical listening.

I also really like some of it.

I have noticed that she is attractive, but after I heard her.

At this stage in her career, I imagine she has a lot of creative freedom and chose to include those photos.

Who knows, perhaps Elvis C wanted to show off!

[rajacat]

I'm far from being a  prude. Hmm...I wonder if Ms. Krall would wear this outfit live, in concert? I might pay to see that, ha ha.
I bet that she'd be embarrassed to do that. Does that make her a prude?
Actually, I think she's pretty good looking but just hang out at any college campus on a hot Summer day and you would see be many young ladies that are much more enticing.

I think she's a pretty good singer too but can't hold a candle to the greats like Sarah Vaughan.

[FullRangeMan]

FRM: This is what I would be interested in discussing.  Now, if a marketing/sales type at the record company forces a female musician into putting a provocative image onto the album cover, against the musician's own wishes, then I might agree.  But, if the musician, accepting themself as a sexual being, and indeed embracing their own sexuality, and the fact that sexual appeal is part of their artistic expression, decides to use such an image, how would that demean the position of women?

Indeed, it seems that we still are living in a world where sexuality is not something to be celebrated and rather it is something to be ashamed of.

Sexuality is part of the artistic expression of many musicians, male and female.  There is nothing wrong with that.  Being confident and comfortable with one's own sexuality (man or women) is a good thing, and expressing it as part of a creative endeavor should not demean anyone, on the contrary: by owning one's own sexuality it can be empowering.

I see your point.
I referred to the most noble position of woman as wife and mother and grandmother.
Sexuality is a smaller mechanical function and takes a few minutes of the week.

[srb]

Sexuality is a smaller mechanical function and takes a few minutes of the week.

You're confusing sexuality with sexual intercourse.  Hopefully you will come to understand and appreciate the difference.

[charmerci]

I referred to the most noble position of woman as wife and mother and grandmother.
Sexuality is a smaller mechanical function and takes a few minutes of the week.

Gosh, you don't think much of Mother Theresa. 

As for the second line, I feel sorry for you. Really, isn't that also demeaning to women who want more than a couple of minutes each week? 

[Diamond Dog]

Low-hanging fruit, guys. Low-hanging fruit.  Tastefully harvested, though...

D.D.

[WGH]

Sexuality is a smaller mechanical function and takes a few minutes of the week.

You are listening to the wrong type of music, try this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fN4SWKZ3hDE

[FullRangeMan]

You're confusing sexuality with sexual intercourse.  Hopefully you will come to understand and appreciate the difference.

Seems you mean say sexuality=porn.

[jarcher]

All right guys - let's not gang up on FRM and let's get back to "selling sexuality in the music biz" or whatever this threads about.

FRM : don't feed the flames!

Diamond Dog : thanks for the perspective, as usual.

P.s. I'm surprised no Krall-haters have come out of the woodwork! 

[charmerci]

All right guys - let's not gang up on FRM and let's get back to "selling sexuality in the music biz" or whatever this threads about.

FRM : don't feed the flames!

Diamond Dog : thanks for the perspective, as usual.

P.s. I'm surprised no Krall-haters have come out of the woodwork!

I don't think we're "ganging up" on FRM. He has some primitive views on how women should be and can't be on a thread about on exploiting women's sexuality in music. He believes that women expressing their sexuality in public is almost pornographic and that they shouldn't, period, that they should be satisfied with few minutes of sex a week and they are "best" as homemakers to raise children*. I mean really. 

* Which of course, is highly important, if that what they choose.

[JohnR]

A common reason for threads to go south is when people start commenting on other posters rather than the actual topic.

[mix4fix]

P.s. I'm surprised no Krall-haters have come out of the woodwork!

She sucks???

 

[Rob Babcock]

I don't know FullRangeMan personally nor whether he has "primitive views" but I don't think he's a native English speaker.  Remember that we have AC'ers spread out over the whole world.  Sometimes the nuances of things get lost in translation.

[charmerci]

A common reason for threads to go south is when people start commenting on other posters rather than the actual topic.

Duly noted. This thread is about why a talented musician like DK would try to be sexy in public when she doesn't have to - rather than what thinks where women's place in society should be - which is what I was responding to by certain people.

[Rob Babcock]

This is kind of a tricky topic for me.   I'm a 45 year old white guy in the midwest; probably the least disadvantaged demographic there is.  What do I know about sexism?  I know one very very liberal lesbian that has said more power to DK (I think her actual words were "I'd peel her a grape!" ).  Is is possible for women to "reclaim their power" by doing the exact same things that are normally done to objectify them?  I dunno.

The album art for Glad Rag Doll is obviously nothing like, say, Nicki Minaj on her Anaconda album.  But then the latter isn't really known much as an artist, more of a product, and her entire career has been built on a hyper-sexualized image.  Of course, isn't that also a double standard?  That it's okay to sell sex if it's tasteful and done in a manner that the upper crust approves of?  You know, Playboy, Maxim and GQ are "men's magazines" but go a smidge further into Hustler and it's "porn".  What is the difference?  Areolas?  Penetration?

It seems that men can do beefcake layouts and still be taken seriously at whatever their day job is.  But it seems like by and large women are judged primarily on the basis of their looks, and then based on whatever talent they have.  Men can be taken seriously no matter how they look for the most part.  Just look at movies; males still land leading man roles well into their 60's, even in romcoms, where roles for women start to dry up once they start to lose their sex appeal.  The exceptions almost prove the rule.  A famous enough actress like Meryl Streep still gets calls but look at the other over-40 women that still get work:  Sandra Bullock, Naomi Watts, Halle Berry, Jennifer Garner, Jennifer Aniston, etc.  What do those women have in common?  They work out, get cosmetic surgery, whatever it takes to still look "hot".

I guess I don't even know what to think.  I'm a guy, no doubt!  So I won't deny to an admiration for a pretty face.  I just wonder why most jobs for women seem to require a pretty face.

[Russell Dawkins]

I think looks are important for a man in show biz almost as much as for a woman, and in my observation the same applies in some other walks of life, too, like the upper levels of business management where it looks to me like there are a disproportionate number of taller, fitter and better-looking men and women in CEO and similar positions. The same applies to politics - but then, to an extent, all this could be called "show business".

[Rob Babcock]

I suppose looks are more important for a man now than they were in decades past.  Before TV I imagine a lot record buyers wouldn't recognize a famous musician if they saw him or her on the street.